It was around 7:30 on Monday night, when Catherine Riddle decided she'd go for a walk. She never imagined having to fight for her life on Carter Road but fight she did.

"I think the emotional scars are going to last a lot longer than the physical ones," said husband Kenny Brigman.

Brigman tells Channel 3, the three dogs that attacked Catherine, first knocked her down. Kicking and screaming, she tried fighting them off.

"The one had her by the arm and was dragging her while the others were biting her," said Brigman. "They were treating her like a rag doll, like a play toy."

Bite after bite, they drug her down the road. In the photos taken in her hospital room, you can see both of her knees have road rash.

Catherine told her family, the dogs were trying to drag her into the woods. She told her husband the attack felt like hours of sheer terror and pain.

"Her arms, both of her legs, her back, the only place they didn't get was her neck and face. Pretty much everywhere else they bit," said Brigman.

Family members say one of scariest bite marks is located just inches from Catherine's neck. A car coming around the bend during the attack, gave her hope but they didn't stop.

Catherine told her family, several cars passed without stopping. It wasn't until the fourth car passed, that Catherine gave up hope.

"She really said she gave up, she said she thought she was going to die," said Brigman. "She thought they were going to kill her."

Neighbors ran over, one with a baseball bat beating the dogs away. That's when the dogs turned on them. With the help of other neighborhood dogs, the attack ended. Catherine calls those neighbors her "angels."

"If you got a dog and it's aggressive it needs to be locked up, why would you take a chance? I don't care what anybody says it doesn't matter what breed, all dogs are dangerous. They all have teeth, they can all bite," said Brigman

The dogs' owner, Billy Rogers, is charged with 3 felony counts of 'Dogs at Large with Serious Bodily Harm.' Channel 3 has learned this isn't the first time the dogs have been seized.

The SPCA took custody of the dogs back in November after one other dog owned by Rogers, bit a teenager in the leg.

Officials with SPCA are holding the dogs under a mandatory 10 day quarantine. THE THREE DOGS NOW IN CUSTODY WERE SAID TO BE "MUTTS" OF "MIXED BREEDS".

PREVIOUS STORY:A Bradley County man is behind bars, charged with 3 felony counts of dogs at large with serious bodily injury. Deputies believe his 3 dogs, seriously injured a woman during an attack on Carter Road around 7:30 Monday night.

Deputies say Catherine Ann Riddle suffered serious injuries. After the attack, she was taken to Erlanger Hospital where she was immediately rushed into surgery.

The dogs believed to be responsible were described by neighbors as being aggressive and territorial. The family who owns the seized dogs told Channel 3, they're heartbroken. They said the 3 dogs taken into custody have always been good with family including their children.

Riddle was walking alone on Carter Road Monday night when 3 dogs attacked her. Deputies say she tried to fight them off but they kept on biting her arms, legs, shoulder and torso.

Neighbors ran over, one with a baseball bat, trying to beat the dogs away. That's when the dogs turned on them. Eyewitnesses say the neighbors weren't hurt, but the attack didn't stop until two neighboring hero dogs,"Sassy and Mowgli" scared the trio off.

Deputies say the dogs who attacked Riddle, escaped through a broken fence. Authorities charged owner Billy Rogers with 3 felony counts of Dogs at Large with Serious Bodily Harm.

"From what I understand is there was a fence out back. but one end of the fence was down and they could get out," said Capt. Steve Lawson, Bradley County Sheriff's Dept.

SPCA of Bradley County, is holding Roger's 3 dogs under a mandatory 10 day quarantine. Channel 3 learned this isn't the first time the dogs have been seized.

"Yea, they was dangerous, real dangerous," said Neighbor Stanley Branam.

Branam tells us one of Roger's previous dogs bit his teenage grandson in the leg, last November. Branam said the dog was one of a pack circling the teenager. The incident was reported to the Sheriff's office.

"It bit him in the leg, I grabbed a tree branch, he ran inside to get his gun, by the time he got back they were close about to get me so he shot one of them," said Branam. "It died in the back building to my understanding."

SPCA took all of Rogers' dogs into custody then, only to release them back under special circumstance two days later. Officials said the dogs were released after Rogers proved they were all up to date on their rabies vaccinations.

"If they hadn't of let him have them back this would have never happened," said Branam.

SPCA described the 3 dogs now in custody as being one female with her two 6-8 month old puppies. They confirmed the trio were a part of the group of dogs taken into SPCA custody, last November. The two puppies were younger then, not involved in the November biting incident officials say they were seized for safety reasons. SPCA officials said all of the dogs were of "mixed breeds."

Branam could not say if any of the 3 dogs now in SPCA custody ever bit his grandson or anyone else. Roger's mother Betty, tells Channel 3 she believes deputies have the wrong dogs. She said her son's dogs are sweet with kids and neighbors.

"Those pups have never bit anyone," said Betty Rogers. "I know the 3 pups police took yesterday, I can't see them biting anyone."

Authorities tell Channel 3 they are confident they have the right animals. Mr. Rogers is being held on a $15,000 bond. At last check, Ms. Riddle was still in the hospital.

2 comments:

Carter Road is east of Chattanooga in a very rural area just south of the Smoky Mountains. She could have been dragged off the road some and it was getting dark. It just seems like one of those 4 cars would have seen her and the dogs and helped her sooner. But people are terrified of these dogs and they might not have had anything in the vehicle to fight them with. However, I've read stories where someone driving by an attack has driven their car right up to the victim and tried to run the dogs down and got the victim into their car.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.